Difference between Joint Will and Mutual will discussed.

First defendant in O.S. No.555 of 1986, on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Thirumangalam, is the appellant before this Court.

2. First respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the above suit, seeking the following reliefs: “....to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff

(a) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to be the Manager and Correspondent of the suit property;

(b) consequent to the passing of a decree for declaration, for a permanent injunction against the first defendant, his men, agents and persons claiming under him from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property;

(c) directing the first defendant to pay the costs of this action’...”

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in this second appeal, according to their rank in the suit.

4. The averments in the plaint are as follows: Plaintiff and first defendant are sister and brother, and they are the children of second defendant. The subject-matter of the suit is a Primary School by name ‘Kasthuriba Gandhi Primary School, Munsif’s Court Road, Tirumangalam, Madurai District’. It is said that the school was established by the second defendant about 50 years prior to the institution of the suit, and from the very inception, she was working as Manager and Correspondent of the said school. It is further said that the second defendant worked very hard to improve the school and also the standard of education in the said school. She was also working as Headmistress for many years till her retirement from service in 1971. It is said that the plaintiff was also working as Headmistress in the school in question upto 1977. At that time, the first defendant with some ulterior motive, created problems between plaintiff and 2nd defendant. Subsequently, the first defendant was able to terminate the services of the plaintiff from the school through the second defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant found out the reality and also the real character of the first defendant. Even though the second defendant retired from service in the year 1971, she continued as Manager and Correspondent in the school. As days passed, her health condition also deteriorated and, therefore, she decided to settle her own properties including the suit property where the school is situated, and the right of management over the said school, in favour of the plaintiff, as per settlement deed dated 21. 1985. It is said that on the date of settlement, she handed over possession of the properties. The school is now recognised by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. It is also said that the 2nd defendant sent a petition to the 3rd defendant, to recognise the plaintiff as Manager-cum- Correspondent. First defendant, who was all along inimical towards the plaintiff, also sent a petition to the same authority, stating that he has also got some right in the school on the basis of a registered will executed by the parents. It is a joint will executed by the parents of plaintiff and first defendant. It is said that the 3rd defendant, without properly understanding the legal position, unilaterally wanted to support the first defendant and simply dragged on the proceeding, and finally, passed an order as per Ex.A-4 on 21. 1986, directing the plaintiff as well as first defendant to establish their right in a civil court, and approach him again for transfer of management. Since, the third defendant himself had submitted to the jurisdiction of civil court, plaintiff had no other option but to seek intervention of court, for the reliefs stated above.

5.. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he has stated that the suit is not maintainable in law. According to him, the suit is premature, and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. He said that a will was executed by the parents of plaintiff and 1st defendant on 8. 1974. It is said that on the basis of the will which is mutual i